Indian Institute of Management, Ranchi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Indian Institute of Management, Ranchi, demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.514 that indicates a very low exposure to questionable research practices. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over redundant publications and multiple affiliations, alongside a clear resilience against national trends of concern, such as output in discontinued journals and institutional self-citation. This strong governance framework is the bedrock supporting its academic excellence, particularly in its highest-ranking thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data: Psychology, Business, Management and Accounting, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. This commitment to ethical conduct directly fulfills the institutional mission to "support excellence in management education and research that positively impacts people, organizations, and society," as genuine excellence and positive societal impact are impossible without a foundation of unimpeachable integrity. The institution's low-risk profile ensures that its contributions are credible, sustainable, and truly beneficial. The global recommendation is to formalize and share these effective internal control mechanisms, positioning the Institute as a national leader in research integrity and governance.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -1.472, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.927. This result indicates a complete absence of risk signals in this area, even when compared to an already low-risk national context. This demonstrates an exemplary level of transparency in how institutional credit is assigned. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the institution's exceptionally low rate suggests its policies effectively prevent any strategic use of affiliations to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” ensuring that its collaborative footprint is clear and unambiguous.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.052, the institution maintains a low-risk profile in a national context that shows medium-level risk (Z-score: 0.279). This contrast suggests that the institution's internal control mechanisms are successfully mitigating systemic vulnerabilities present elsewhere in the country. A high rate of retractions can suggest that quality control mechanisms are failing prior to publication. However, the Institute's low score indicates that its pre-publication review, supervision, and methodological rigor are effective, protecting its integrity culture from the recurring issues that may affect its environment.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.559 is firmly in the low-risk category, standing in stark contrast to the national average of 0.520, which falls into the medium-risk range. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, suggesting that the center avoids the national trend toward scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate confirms that its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, showcasing a healthy integration into international scientific discourse.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a low-risk Z-score of -0.322, while the national average is a medium-risk 1.099. This significant difference highlights the institution's effective filtering of low-quality publication venues, acting as a safeguard against a prevalent national issue. Publishing in discontinued journals can expose an institution to severe reputational risks. The Institute's prudent performance indicates a high level of due diligence and information literacy among its researchers, ensuring that scientific output is channeled through reputable media that meet international ethical and quality standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.332, the institution shows a very low incidence of hyper-authorship, a finding that is consistent with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -1.024). This alignment demonstrates a shared culture of responsible authorship attribution. The absence of risk signals suggests that the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and practices of author list inflation. This fosters a research environment where individual accountability is maintained and 'honorary' authorships are discouraged, reinforcing transparency in scientific contributions.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution's Z-score of -0.647 is lower than the national average of -0.292, both of which are in the low-risk category. This indicates a prudent and rigorous profile, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is built on solid internal capacity. A wide gap can signal that an institution's impact is dependent on external partners rather than its own intellectual leadership. The Institute's contained gap demonstrates that its excellence metrics are a result of genuine internal capabilities, reflecting a sustainable model where it exercises significant intellectual leadership in its collaborations.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.740 is notably lower than the national average of -0.067, indicating a more rigorous management of author productivity. This prudent profile suggests a strong institutional focus on the quality of scientific contributions over sheer volume. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes can signal imbalances. The Institute's low score in this area mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, reinforcing a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the national average of -0.250, showing perfect alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security. This synchrony indicates that the institution maintains a healthy and appropriate use of its in-house journals. By avoiding excessive dependence on internal publication channels, the institution ensures its scientific production does not bypass independent external peer review, thus preventing academic endogamy and maximizing the global visibility and competitive validation of its research.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution presents a Z-score of -1.186, marking a state of preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.720). This stark difference highlights an exceptional commitment to publishing substantive work. A high rate of redundant output often indicates 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. The institution's very low score demonstrates a clear policy against such practices, ensuring that its research contributes significant new knowledge rather than distorting scientific evidence.